Mission Critical Project Services, Inc.

B-424081.2 Mar 26, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Critical Project Services, Inc., (MCPS), of Aurora, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Christway Construction Company LLC, of Houston, Texas, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA301625Q0183, issued by the Department of the Air Force for two heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to be installed at Fort Sam Houston, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Texas. The protester asserts that the agency improperly rejected its initial and alternate quotations as technically unacceptable, and the agency's evaluation and award are unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mission Critical Project Services, Inc. File: B-424081.2 Date: March 26, 2026 Ryan Franz, and Emily Franz, for the protester. Walker J. Gray, Esq., Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Colonel Justin A. Silverman, and Jesse L. Ondera, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably found protester's initial quotations technically unacceptable is denied where the quotations failed to meet the brand name requirements set forth under the amended solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation and award determination is dismissed where the agency reasonably found protester's initial quotations technically unacceptable, and therefore the vendor is not an interested party to challenge the agency's evaluation. DECISION Mission Critical Project Services, Inc., (MCPS), of Aurora, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Christway Construction Company LLC, of Houston, Texas, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA301625Q0183, issued by the Department of the Air Force for two heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to be installed at Fort Sam Houston, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Texas. The protester asserts that the agency improperly rejected its initial and alternate quotations as technically unacceptable, and the agency's evaluation and award are unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2025, the Air Force issued the RFQ as a combined synopsis/solicitation under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The RFQ required the removal of existing HVAC systems and installation of two Leibert HVAC systems at JBSA Fort Sam Houston. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 1.[1] The RFQ incorporated by reference FAR provision 52.212-2, which provided for award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. Id. at 2-4, 41. The RFQ established that quotations would be evaluated for technical acceptability under two factors: (1) brand name and (2) delivery timeframe/installation schedule. As relevant to the protest, to be considered technically acceptable under the brand name factor, quotations had to meet the “Brand Name items” identified in the RFQ. Id. at 3. Specifically, vendors were required to provide the “exact Leibert brand name items with the exact salient characteristics” and to provide manufacturing name, part number, illustrations/specifications, “and/or [] literature or description.” Id. On August 25, the agency amended the solicitation to extend the deadline for quotations to September 11 at 10:00 a.m. Central Time, among other changes. COS at 2; AR, Tab 5, RFQ amend. 1. On August 28, the protester submitted two quotations via email.[2] On September 4, the agency issued a second and final amendment, which changed the air handler unit model number to Leibert VS105AUC1009EMS and other technical specifications.[3] COS at 3; RFQ at 3, 43. The final revised RFQ required vendors to submit their quotations by the previously specified September 11 date and time. It also incorporated FAR provision 52.212-1, which established that late quotations would not be considered. RFQ at 1-2; See also FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i). The agency received multiple quotations, including quotations from MCPS and Christway Construction in response to the final revised RFQ. AR, Tab 12, Simplified Acquisition Decision Document at 5. MCPS submitted its quotation at 10:02 a.m. on September 11, two minutes after the deadline. AR, Tab 9, Notice of MCPS' Late Quotation at 6-7. On the same day, the agency notified MCPS via email that it could not accept the protester's late revised quotation. Id. at 5-6. However, despite rejecting the revised quotation as late, the record reflects that the agency evaluated the protester's initial quotations against the final revised RFQ. AR, Tab 12, Simplified Acquisition Decision Document at 3; Agency Briefing at 3; see also Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4.